Judgment :- The petitioner has challenged the order of his removal passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pudukkottai District, the second respondent herein, dated 13. 1991 and confirmed by the order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai, the first respondent herein dated 29. 1993 and the order passed by the fifth respondent dated 212. 1993, discharging the petitioner from service. 2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner has submitted that he was temporarily appointed as Junior Inspector-cum-Special Officer of Co-operative Societies in Pudukkottai District, under Rule 10(a) (1) on 12. 1985. He was transferred to various places and in all these places he discharged his duties without any blemish. However, on 5. 1990, he was served with a charge memo as detailed below: "a) While he was working as Special Officer of Primary Agricultural co-operative Banks, he failed to arrest misappropriation of funds of the bank and abetted for misappropriation. b) He failed to discharge his duties and responsibilities as Special Officer and then caused loss to the Banks. c) He is responsible for the loss to the Banks by acting in violation of the by-laws of the Banks." 3. The petitioner has further submitted that pending enquiry into the alleged grave charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, he was placed under suspension by the third respondent dated 6. 1990. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 26. 1990. The Deputy Registrar (Public Distribution System) Pudukkottai was appointed as an enquiry officer. During enquiry, the Department did not let in any witness to prove the charges. On the other hand, on the basis of the documents Exs.P1 to P6 produced at the time of enquiry, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charges were proved. It is submitted by the petitioner that persons who had actually misappropriated the funds of the Bank were left scot-free and that no action was taken against them. On the basis of the enquiry officers report dated 11. 1990, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the second respondent herein, removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai and the said appeal was rejected on 29. 1993. Thereafter, by an order dated 212. On the basis of the enquiry officers report dated 11. 1990, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the second respondent herein, removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai and the said appeal was rejected on 29. 1993. Thereafter, by an order dated 212. 1993, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thanjavur District, discharged the petitioner from service on the basis of the orders passed by respondents 1 & 3. Aggrieved by the above said orders, the petitioner had filed O.A.No.212 of 1994 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by inviting the attention of this Court to the enquiry officers report submitted that though the charges were framed under Section 17 (b) of the CCA Rules, no witnesses were examined during the course of enquiry to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. He further submitted that the department has not followed the procedure contemplated under the rules for inflicting a major penalty of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement as the case may be and therefore the whole proceedings are vitiated. 5. Placing reliance on the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in JAGDISH PRASAD SAXENA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT reported in 1963 1 L.L.J. Page 325, he submitted that even in the case, where the delinquent has admitted irregularity, it is mandatory onl the part of the department to conduct that an enquiry should be conducted to prove the charges. Learned counsel further submitted that respondents 1 and 2 have failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner has not misappropriated the funds of the banks and persons who had actually misappropriated were left scot-free. He further submitted that the appellate authority has failed to exercise his jurisdiction and examine the records independently and merely extracted the findings of the enquiry officers report. 6. Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate submitted that the Department has followed proper procedure and considering the gravity of the charges, no interference is called for. The respondents in their counter affidavit have submitted that while the petitioner was working as a Special Officer of the Perungalur and Vaavalam Primari Agricultural Co-operative Banks from 212. 1985 to 17. 1988 and in Thatchankurichy Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank from 17. 1988 to 16. The respondents in their counter affidavit have submitted that while the petitioner was working as a Special Officer of the Perungalur and Vaavalam Primari Agricultural Co-operative Banks from 212. 1985 to 17. 1988 and in Thatchankurichy Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank from 17. 1988 to 16. 1989, he committed certain irregularities in the working of these Banks; therefore charges were framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pudukottai dated 5. 1990 and thereafter he was placed under suspension on 6. 1990. It is further stated that the petitioner had committed the following irregularities: "(1) that he failed to prevent the misappropriation of funds in these Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks; (2) that he failed to discharge his duties and responsibilities as Special Officer and thus caused loss to the Primary Agricultural co-operative Banks and .(3) that he is responsible for the loss to the banks by acting in violation of the by laws of the said banks. Besides a criminal case was pending trial in C.C.NO.229, 230/94 on the Chief Judicial Magistrate court as of now, and he has been included as an accused Officer for the misappropriation of funds of the societies." 7. The respondents have stated that an enquiry was ordered and that the Joint Registrar (Public Distribution System), Pudukkottai was appointed as enquiry officer. The petitioner was also given an opportunity to make his further representation on the enquiry report. It is also stated that the procedure as contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was followed and therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders warranting interference. 8. Heard both sides. 9. In the case on hand, for the charges framed on 5. 1990, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 26. 1990 and denyed the charges. An enquiry was conducted on 212. 1990 and 1. 1991 and the petitioner alone was examined in the enquiry proceedings. Perusal of the minutes/enquiry officers report filed in support of this writ petition reveal that though some of the witnesses to be examined on behalf of the department were present none of them were enquired by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer relying on the documents Ex.P1 to P6, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed the delinquency. 10. The enquiry officer relying on the documents Ex.P1 to P6, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed the delinquency. 10. Rule 17(b)(i) of TNCS (D&A) Rules envisage the procedure to be followed for imposing major penalties and it is extracted hereunder: "(i)Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850 (Central Act XXXVII of 1850), in every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service or on a person holding a civil post under the State any of the penalties specified in items (iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) in Rule 8, the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charges or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged, together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires an oral inquiry or to be heard in person or both. An oral inquiry shall be held if such an enquiry is desired by the person charged or is directed by the authority concerned. Even if a person charged has waived an oral inquiry such inquiry shall be held by the authority concerned in respect of charges which are not admitted by the person charged and which can be proved only through the evidence of witnesses. At that inquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may, for special and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. Whether or not the person charged desired or had an oral inquiry, he shall be heard in person at any stage if he so desires before passing of final orders. Whether or not the person charged desired or had an oral inquiry, he shall be heard in person at any stage if he so desires before passing of final orders. A report of the inquiry or personal hearing (as the case may be) shall be prepared by the authority holding the inquiry or personal hearing whether or not such authority holding the inquiry or personal hearing whether or not such authority is competent to impose the penalty. Such report shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence, if any, and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. Whenever any inquiring authority, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein and is succeeded by another inquiring authority which has, and which exercises such jurisdiction, the inquiring authority so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by it predecessor, or partly recorded by its predecessor and partly recorded by itself." 11. It is explicit in the minutes as well as in the orders passed by the disciplinary authority that none of the witnesses were examined in the enquiry proceedings to prove the charges. The Supreme Court in the above cited decision has held that a departmental enquiry is not an empty formality; it is a serious proceeding intended to give the officer concerned a chance to meet the charges and to prove his innocence. In the absence of any such enquiry, it would not be fair to strain facts against the petitioner and to hold that in view of the admissions made by him the enquiry would have served no useful purpose. 12. Though the petitioner did not choose to cross examine any of the witness, yet as per Rule 17(b)(i) of the Rules, charges which are not admitted by the delinquent should be proved only by oral and documentary evidence let in through the witnesses. Admittedly, Exs.P1 to P6 were produced during the course of enquiry without examining any of the witnesses and the enquiry officer has held the charges as proved. The procedure followed by the department is certainly contrary to the Rules and there is a failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to purforth his case. Admittedly, Exs.P1 to P6 were produced during the course of enquiry without examining any of the witnesses and the enquiry officer has held the charges as proved. The procedure followed by the department is certainly contrary to the Rules and there is a failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to purforth his case. Further, on perusal of the order of the appellate authority it can be seen that the appellate authority has also failed to consider the explanation of the petitioner in proper perspective. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are set aside. Since the result of the criminal case registered against the writ petitioner is not known, the matter is remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration. It is open to the respondents to restart the enquiry and examine the witnesses in the enquiry proceedings and provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. The respondents are also directed to complete the above said exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.